195 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 January 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:

I see it quite frequently with paired ppc shots, as do many others, have been many threads about them, and tandem SRMs, etc often not registering.

This is why I rarely group fire... I find I get much more consistant damage registration when I rapid chain fire.

[Ted Wayz]

Working spotlight or GTFO.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ted Wayz, on 09 January 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

Working spotlight or GTFO.

It works...just not in visible light spectrums....

[TexAce]

Anyone who thinks putting the PPCs into the side torsos is better than in the arms has never hit a cockpit with an AC20 on a YLW/AH while running and pointing the shield arm towards enemy. That's something you cant do with torso mounted weapons. Look away and shoot at the enemy at the same time.

That shiny tier 1 medal just shows who spends more time with the game than others to raise their XP bar. In other words, a tryhard.

Edited by TexAce, 09 January 2016 - 03:57 PM.

[Ted Wayz]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 January 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

It works...just not in visible light spectrums....

I would take that. Use it to blind people using IR!

[Bishop Steiner]

Ted Wayz, on 09 January 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:

I would take that. Use it to blind people using IR!

oh.... sorry, our funding was cut before IR.... but it makes a groovy blacklight! Great for techno parties and pretending you are on CSI!

[SkaerKrow]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 January 2016 - 11:52 PM, said:

the Goodyear Blimp with legs nailed it? Baby King Crab?

Insofar as capturing the spirit of the source material without inviting the wrath of Harmony Gold? I would say so. The Warhammer was the mech that got me into Battletech in 1992 or so, and it always had a strong, robust look. From the new screenshots, the waist on the new model looks very thin and fragile. I can get beyond the top heaviness, but the waist is a killer for me. I may break down and get it just because I'll be inside the cockpit more often than not, but it didn't turn out to be iconic, mean looking mech that I hoped for.

Just my two cents, though.

[Wintersdark]

Ted Wayz, on 09 January 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

Working spotlight or GTFO.

man, I SO want to see working lights on mechs. I want the option to turn on floodlights instead of night vision etc. Badly.

[Metus regem]

Wintersdark, on 09 January 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

man, I SO want to see working lights on mechs. I want the option to turn on floodlights instead of night vision etc. Badly.

Lol that makes me remember a night OP I flew back in my time with the Army, me and my gunner were out hunting for targets at night, when we spooted an Iraqii tank group that had flood lights on... Was a shooting gallery for us....

[Bishop Steiner]

SkaerKrow, on 09 January 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

Insofar as capturing the spirit of the source material without inviting the wrath of Harmony Gold? I would say so. The Warhammer was the mech that got me into Battletech in 1992 or so, and it always had a strong, robust look. From the new screenshots, the waist on the new model looks very thin and fragile. I can get beyond the top heaviness, but the waist is a killer for me. I may break down and get it just because I'll be inside the cockpit more often than not, but it didn't turn out to be iconic, mean looking mech that I hoped for.

Just my two cents, though.

got bad news for you

tiny waist on the old 3025 TRO material

3050 too (and top heavy)

Pre Btech Anime version

ral partha whammy mini

blue print

box set

it pretty much always had a small waist, and often a pretty big torso

[Wintersdark]

Yeah, I'm aware of the vulnerability, but floodlights would certainly aid in finding hidey mechs. There's a lot of times where you're not concerned with someone seeing you, but you want to find them.

[MechWarrior414712]

This game needs weapon quirks for specific slots.... Shame that nobody is going to use those arms for PPCs. Would also help lots of mechs (summoners)

[Wintersdark]

The Mech Daddy, on 09 January 2016 - 04:31 PM, said:

This game needs weapon quirks for specific slots.... Shame that nobody is going to use those arms for PPCs. Would also help lots of mechs (summoners)

it would also help with one of the largest problems weapon quirks face, and that is that it's extremely difficult to grabularly control the value of a quirk when boating is an option, as you must quirk by considering a boated build.

Massively quirking ERPPC's on a mech that's only mounting one is fine. But what if that mech can mount 4? So you can't heavily quirk them, but that limits your options.

Same - more so even - with general quirks. -10% energy heat is a far more valuable quirk on a mech with 10E than a mech with 1E, but that means the mech with 6E, 2B pays out of the nose for energy quirks even if its primarily mounting ballistics.

Per-hardpoint quirks totally avoid that problem, AND help balance the value of hardpoints locations.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 09 January 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

it would also help with one of the largest problems weapon quirks face, and that is that it's extremely difficult to grabularly control the value of a quirk when boating is an option, as you must quirk by considering a boated build.

Massively quirking ERPPC's on a mech that's only mounting one is fine. But what if that mech can mount 4? So you can't heavily quirk them, but that limits your options.

Same - more so even - with general quirks. -10% energy heat is a far more valuable quirk on a mech with 10E than a mech with 1E, but that means the mech with 6E, 2B pays out of the nose for energy quirks even if its primarily mounting ballistics.

Location dependant quirks, or sized hardpoints.... honestly both would have been preferable.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 January 2016 - 04:37 PM, said:

Location dependant quirks, or sized hardpoints.... honestly both would have been preferable.

Yeah. I'm still bitter about sized hardpoints though, so I'm not going there

[cSand]

Looking good for the 19th.

I highly doubt it will replace my MAD in usage time, that MAD is just too damn good a chassis. We'll see though

[Bishop Steiner]

nuff said?

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 January 2016 - 08:52 AM, said:

nuff said?

At least my 6R will keep the arm PPC's and the SRM 6 pack (with Artemis)....

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 10 January 2016 - 08:55 AM, said:

At least my 6R will keep the arm PPC's and the SRM 6 pack (with Artemis)....

I'll probably drop the SRM rack, since I generally don't like single srm units (the one with missiles on each shoulder will be a differnet story).... plus my "canon" TT build ran an LB-X10 in the RT instead.... if the thing is Xl viable and I can fit a normal AC10 in the RT, that's what my 6R will have...along with PPC arms.
ghetto hammer
something like that but with another Mlaser, maybe 2.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 10 January 2016 - 09:05 AM.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 January 2016 - 08:59 AM, said:

I'll probably drop the SRM rack, since I generally don't like single srm units (the one with missiles on each shoulder will be a differnet story).... plus my "canon" TT build ran an LB-X10 in the RT instead.... if the thing is Xl viable and I can fit a normal AC10 in the RT, that's what my 6R will have...along with PPC arms.

The last TT campaign I was in my 6R, became a real monstrosity ovr time, Blazers replaced the PPC's due to Battle salvage and damage, the MG's are replaced by AMS... And a bunch of other changes, that character spent close to 20 million cbills keeping that thing up and running through all the damage and changes....